Saturday, February 24, 2007

A little idolatry...

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."









But... isn't she just magnificent? Cranmer concedes that he is an idolatrous sinner, but on the week when this remarkarble woman was honoured with a bronze likeness in the Palace of Westminster, the Lord will be understanding and quick to forgive.

44 Comments:

Anonymous Colin said...

She deserves it !

Although :-)

what if she were Catholic ?

24 February 2007 at 18:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or Muslim?

24 February 2007 at 18:43  
Blogger Surreptitious Evil said...

I don't know the truth myself but the story that there is a small bust of Ted Heath on a neglected table under the statue's left hand is even more snigger-worthy than the comment on Friday's dit on News Quiz about Arthur Scargill.

24 February 2007 at 18:45  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

She was a Methodist.

It was her Protestant work ethic that contributed to her greatness!

24 February 2007 at 19:46  
Anonymous Colin said...

The problem with this theory is the existence of millions of Catholics with and millions of
Protestants without work ethic. Hence, it is difficult to see how Mrs. Thatcher's religion should be a necessary and sufficient cause of her greatness.

24 February 2007 at 20:18  
Blogger tim said...

Well, true, there can be plenty of exceptions to generalities, but that doesn't mean the generalization isn't (ahem) *generally* true. And Ulster Man didn't say her religion was necessary and sufficient. Simply that it "contributed."

(Still, we don't mind the cheerful teasing.)

I'm very proud to know that she was a coreligionist of mine!

24 February 2007 at 20:31  
Anonymous Colin said...

"cheerful teasing"

Well observed, Tim.

In my view, she is one of the few politicians who rightfully deserve admiration and you have every reason to be proud of her.

24 February 2007 at 21:06  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

A little idolatry?
I never realised that for you, sin is determined on the basis of quantity. You never cease to amaze me Cranmer.

24 February 2007 at 21:55  
Blogger Scott said...

Yes. Almost Catholic, you might say.

Get you.

But seriously: does God prohibit all graven images, or, as it is implied, merely those worshiped instead of Him? I've always feared this is fudged by most (including myself), like women talking in Church. Does anyone have a light they might direct upon it?

24 February 2007 at 22:35  
Anonymous Colin said...

"Does anyone have a light they might direct upon it?"

His Grace has a light.

25 February 2007 at 00:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding graven images.

I believe that in both the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition and in Tibetan Buddhism, icons and statues may be 'venerated' as numinous-aesthetic symbols, but not 'worshipped' as gods.

Nevertheless low-church protestants and Zen Buddhists are suspicious of graven images and prefer to decorate their places of worship very sparsely.

Muslims are not allowed to worship or venerate anything other than Allah with the bizarre exception of meteorites, which must be kissed and prostrated to.

25 February 2007 at 00:22  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss silly bean,

A more profound erudition of His Grace's writings should teach you that "sin is determined on the basis of quantity".

Mr. Anonym,

Why should the exception of meteorites be bizarre. After all, they are the only objects on earth which truly came from Heaven, which a little erudition of astronomy might reveal to you.

25 February 2007 at 00:28  
Anonymous fatwa-seeker said...

Colin said

"Why should the exception of meteorites be bizarre. After all, they are the only objects on earth which truly came from Heaven, which a little erudition of astronomy might reveal to you."

Meteorites are mostly lumps of space garbage left over from the formation of the solar system.

Muzbots seem to be programmed to prostrate before any lump of useless junk, like the bibliolatry they show to the Koran, which is neither soft nor absorbent and fulfils no useful purpose.

25 February 2007 at 00:57  
Anonymous billy said...

Ulster Man said...
She was a Methodist.

It was her Protestant work ethic that contributed to her greatness!

7:46 PM

Colin said...
The problem with this theory is the existence of millions of Catholics with and millions of
Protestants without work ethic. Hence, it is difficult to see how Mrs. Thatcher's religion should be a necessary and sufficient cause of her greatness.

8:18 PM

There is a serious academic argument that says the Industrial Revolution would not have happened without the Protesant, non conformist work effort.
To paraphrase: Catholics sit on their arses waiting for redemption but Protestants work for it. Seen in the context of the 18th century it is dificult to argue against.

Wonderful women, made mistakes and was badly advised on occasion but we said at the time she put the Great back into Britain. God Bless her.

25 February 2007 at 10:15  
Blogger haddock said...

Bronze ?, surely cast iron would have been the metal of choice for this lady....and where is the handbag ?

25 February 2007 at 10:33  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean (not silly bean) said...

Colin said...
Miss silly bean,

A more profound erudition of His Grace's writings should teach you that "sin is determined on the basis of quantity".

hmmm...I must admit, I am quite ignorant in this field of Christianity, in that I haven't as yet had the time to read any of 'his grace's' writings.
You are by all means welcome to educate me.

P.S. Must I remind you Mr Colin that this is no way to speak to a woman. I am not a 'silly' bean. I'm a 'jelly' bean. Got it?

25 February 2007 at 11:41  
Anonymous The Clarendon Code said...

The problem with this theory is the existence of millions of Catholics with and millions of
Protestants without work ethic.


I suspect you will need to take up this matter with Max Weber, and R. H. Tawney.

Do let us know the result of your researches

25 February 2007 at 15:26  
Blogger Cato, author of toryheaven.blogspot.com said...

Amen to your blog comment, Your Grace, Amen!

25 February 2007 at 17:06  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

A telling juxtaposition! Lady T above & Gummer below. "Look on this picture ... and on this ..."

25 February 2007 at 19:13  
Anonymous Colin said...

Billy,

"There is a serious academic argument that says the Industrial Revolution would not have happened without the Protesant"

The sociologist Max Weber stated this hypothesis. Unfortunately, there isn't any proof supporting it except the fact that the industrial revolution started in the UK and that the British are mostly Protestants. Others have provided evidence against Weber's hypothesis. In short, the industrial revolution is the result of the devision of labour enabled by the exchange of goods and captial accumulation. Liberty from state interference promotes this process. The devision of labour is an ongoing process for thousands of years in many different civilizations. Most of them were not protestants.

25 February 2007 at 21:34  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss jelly bean,

"Must I remind you Mr Colin that this is no way to speak to a woman. I am not a 'silly' bean. I'm a 'jelly' bean. Got it?"

How could possibly such a grave error happen to me? I beg your pardon for the typo.

"I haven't as yet had the time to read any of 'his grace's' writings. You are by all means welcome to educate me."

Certainly, His Grace is better able to explain his own writings than his humble communicant. As an introduction to his thinking, you might also want to read all his articles and comments on his renowned blog of erudition and intelligence. The rules are that individuals unable to meet these criteria don't have the permission to add nonsensical to intelligent comments. As jester of His Grace's court, I am excluded from the requirements of erudition and intelligence.

25 February 2007 at 21:47  
Blogger tim said...

Colin--

His Grace has a light.

Oooohh! Just...so...many...levels...

(Most fun was explaining the joke to my wife, who is Rumanian and needed a *lot* of background on this.)

26 February 2007 at 02:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Unfortunately, there isn't any proof supporting it except the fact that the industrial revolution started in the UK and that the British are mostly Protestants.

Incomplete. Two nations in Europe were caoable of entering sustained economic growth as industrial societies - ENGLAND (not the UK) or The Netherlands - BOTH Protestant

When Germany industrialised it was Protestant Prussia which did so first.

No Colin...industrialisation involves MACHINES not division of labour. Machines - such as Arkwright's Spinning Jenny are regarded as the beginning because mechanising one part of the production process created bottlenecks elsewhere which required mechanisation to sustain throughput.

It was the development of machines which was key and then the addition of steam-power to those machines which necessitated vertical factories so leather drive-belts could transmit kinetic energy throughout the production flow.

Accumulation of Capital, division of labour, existed in the agrarian economy with the introduction by Jews in England of the Land Mortgage as a basis of bank lending.

26 February 2007 at 05:51  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

Mr Colin... you have been pardoned.
As for your advise on reading Cranmer's 'erudite and intelligent' comments and articles, well I don't think they're anymore intelligent or erudite than anyone else's comments. People will always have a difference in opinion. Being able to articulate your opinion in a penetrating and philosophical manner does not incontrovertibly make your comment 'intelligent or erudite' as you put it.
In fact, he who is neither bigoted nor credulous, is the truly erudite philosopher, think you not?

26 February 2007 at 17:57  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Since I had a sleepless night hoping for your forgiveness, I very much appreciate that you kindly wrote: "you have been pardoned."

"he who is neither bigoted nor credulous, is the truly erudite philosopher, think you not?"

As jester of this blog, I am unable to comment on such profound thoughts. Maybe others are able and willing to take up your challenge to discuss the requirements for a truly erudite philosopher?

26 February 2007 at 20:16  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

Colin said...
Maybe others are able and willing to take up your challenge to discuss the requirements for a truly erudite philosopher?

I think not.

I'm not very welcome on this blog and my fellow comrades tend to shun my (profound?) remarks; especially those questioning Christianity from a critical perspective.

I feel quite guilty knowing you had a sleepless night. (I didn't realise my words would have such an effect on you! LOL)

26 February 2007 at 21:21  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

LOL, I checked: no typo this time.

"my fellow comrades tend to shun my (profound?) remarks; especially those questioning Christianity from a critical perspective."

I can't think of any reason why your fellow comrades should shun your profound insights. Probably, they are still thinking about your "questioning Christianity from a critical perspective" and they haven't found a definitive answer, yet.

Be patient and persistent and an entirely new intellectual world will open to your enquiring philosophical mind.

A hint: Voyager, a very nice, intelligent and erudite chap, is able to prove you wrong on any topic you choose. A debate with him will make you wiser than you were before. Wasn't it Socrates who said "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
"I feel quite guilty knowing you had a sleepless night."

Never mind. I will try to catch up the missed sleep this night. ;-)

26 February 2007 at 22:16  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

"No Colin...industrialisation involves MACHINES not division of labour."

I beg your pardon to differ. The reason is that the construction of machines is the result of a long cultural evolution made possible by the division of labour which tremendously increased the efficiency of human work.

When the first humans emerged 130,000 years ago, they just had the power of their muscles, stone tools and had to spend their entire day hunting and gathering in order to survive. 10,000 years ago they increased their efficiency by using the muscular power of animals and developed agriculture. The resulting increase in efficiency produced a surplus of foods enabling some humans to make a living by specialising in craftmanship and to trade their superior products for foods produced by farmers, i.e. a division of labour. Craftsmen in ancient Greece, Rome, India, China etc. developed machines which used the energy of wind and water such as sailing boats, mills etc. Not one of them was a Protestant. The use of more efficient sources of energy such as coal or oil for these machines isn't fundamentally different but just another step in the ongoing search for increasing the efficiency of human work made possible by the division of labour. Capital is a device for the storage of labour, i.e. a bag of grain (or as a medium of exchange gold or money) which makes it possible to invest the time and work of humans in the development of more efficient methods (e.g. machines, factories) without producing any foods (or goods to exchange for the latter) during the time of development.

In conclusion, it all comes down to the division of labour which is independent of religion, race or culture.

The first factory using steam engines was built by an English craftsman, a clockmaker, to my knowledge. His outstanding idea was quickly copied, first in Northern Europe, because it greatly increased the efficiency of human work. As we all know, Northern Europe differs from the Southern part with regard to religion, percentages of blondes and of beer drinkers.

Based on these geographical correlations, Max Weber proposed religion, Houston Stewart Chamberlain and his eager disciple Adolf Hitler blondness as cause of the "superiority" of Western culture. Let me add the beer hypothesis to demonstrate that correlations are not a proof of causation, as every student of science and statistics knows.

Until approximately 200 years ago, China was technologically the leading nation of the world and probably will be again within the next 50 years. To single out among the 10,000 years of increasing efficiency of human work, just the last 200 years doesn’t make much sense to me. It looks like we have handpicked precisely that time in human history when we were the leading force so that we are able to slap our backs and feel happy as a member of the winning team, be it Protestants, blondes or beer drinkers. The game isn't over, yet.

26 February 2007 at 22:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I appreciate your adulation of blondes and sympathise with your infatuation.

My point exactly was the "division of labour" was a precurrtsor to industrialisation but not the basis of it. The basis was when the machine could not be powered domestically. It was when the family no longer produced one piece of cloth at home over several months to be sold at The Piece Hall in Halifax, but no longer owned the cloth at all merely selling its labour in a mill.

It was cotton and worsted that drove the industrialisation and 75% British exports before 1914 were cotton and coal....cotton protected from Indian competition by The Calico Act.

INdustrialisation in England had much to do with the Test & Corporation Acts

27 February 2007 at 06:36  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

I am always eager to learn.

"Test & Corporation Acts" ?

Could you tell me more about these Acts and why they supposedly are the cause of industrialisation.

Thanks!

27 February 2007 at 11:38  
Blogger Newmania said...

The adoration of the Maggie your Grace ?..I `m sorry I missed this one (Oh how I loathe filthy squalid trade)

27 February 2007 at 18:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Well Colin I shall leave you to Google Test Acts and Corporation Acts yourself.....this is not The Open University


However under The Test Acts those not communicant members of the Anglican Church were excluded from teaching, from law or public service, from university......so like most groups who cannot get an establishment job the Nonconformists had to create their own enterprises ie Trade

The Corporation Acts meant that such persons could not live within 5 miles of a Chartered Borough and the seven villages which later merged into the City of Birmingham were all more than 5 miles from a CHartered Borough and there were very few Chartered Boroughs in Northern England at that time.

So Nonconformists went into trade. The Chamberlain Family for example was related to the Nettlefold Family of screwmakers, their business becoming GKN, Plc and based in Birmingham which was the platform for Joseph Chamberlain and his two sons, Austen and Neville.

Titus Salt was a Congregationalist; and other industrialists were Baptists, Methodists, etc.

It was the inability to access the establishment that forced them to develop their own business - often the real basis for entrepreneurialism yet in our PC times noone mentions discrimination as a spur to innovation, a reason also why so many retail businesses were Jewish in Germany, Britain, USA

28 February 2007 at 05:57  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

"this is not The Open University" I agree that you are not.

Thanks for providing anyway the information to evaluate you claim that the Test Acts and Corporation Acts are the cause of industrialization. In essence, your theory postulates that the inability to obtain a secure job financed by the state, the church etc. will lead to business activities.

Your theory has some advantages but also considerable weaknesses.

First, industrialization requires machines and machines require technological knowledge which obviously was developed prior to the Test Acts and Corporation Acts.

Second, in human history, all able and intelligent persons couldn't possibly in all countries work for state or church.

You provided yourself the main evidence against your thesis, i.e. the discrimination against the Jews in Europe: "a reason also why so many retail businesses were Jewish in Germany, Britain, USA".

Correct. The Jews experienced for centuries similar problems as many Englishmen after the introduction of the Test and Corporation Acts. However, that did not produce machines driven by steam engines (aka industrialization) in the middle ages.

In conclusion, the Test Acts and Corporation Acts might have been an additional factor increasing the number of intelligent young individuals available business. However, without the prior accumulation of knowledge necessary for the construction of machines, they simply would have developed other business activities than the building of factories, e.g. trade like the Venetians and the Dutch before them.

28 February 2007 at 11:54  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Voyager wrote:
INdustrialisation in England had much to do with the Test & Corporation Acts


Colin wrote:
you claim that the Test Acts and Corporation Acts are the cause of industrialization.



Voyager sees problems with Colin's verbal reasoning when comparing the two sentences.

28 February 2007 at 15:44  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager is correct that "much to do" is not the same as "cause".

However, MUCH to do implies a major and TO DO a cause. Hence, your "much to do" postulated that the Test & Corporation Acts are a major cause of industrialization, a hypothesis which is not in agreement with the fact that similar disadvantaged groups, i.e. the Jews, lived in many European countries.

28 February 2007 at 21:27  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Actually Colin you again place emphasis on the wrong points. As for Jews - they returned to England under Lord Protector Cromwell in 1656 but it was 1858 before they could sit in Parliament. In 1882 Britain had 46.000 Jews which is hardly a great number.

The fact is Birmingham was the preeminent industrial city of the British Empire. As for industrial Britain the other major group was Germans fleeing Prussian suppression after the 1848 Revolution......a great number settled in Manchester and in Bradford.....in fact the major locomotive builders in Manchester were German, and it is significant that Henry Royce who had apprenticed in Peterborough as an engineer started his business in Manchester...

Germany had a significantly higher Jewish population which was involved in building firms like Metallgesellschaft, Hermann Tietz, Kaufhof, and large German department store chains....but these were largely late-19th Century creations whereas England's industrialisation took off 1780-1840 and actually began to fade by the 1890s due to tariffs in USA, France, Germany, Russia.

German industrialisation was largely around Berlin and in Saxony and Thuringia - in fact much of what became West Germany was not in fact the industrial sector outside the Ruhr.

Your sentence do" postulated that the Test & Corporation Acts are a major cause of industrialization, a hypothesis which is not in agreement with the fact that similar disadvantaged groups, i.e. the Jews, lived in many European countries. is fatuous. The Test Acts and Corporation Acts only applied in England and so could have no effect anywhere else in Europe.

England was the world's first industrial nation and the only one to industrialise without State assistance.

Once you start looking at various industrial cities from 1780-1840 you can see the backgrounds of the men who built them, and they were predominantly Nonconformists with their chapels and their philanthropy.

In fact if you take the largest monumental cemetery in England after Highgate, Undercliffe Cemetery in Bradford and recall that these cemeteries are laid out with Anglican graves on the left and Nonconformist and Catholic graves on the right, you can see very impressive mausoleums and columns for Nonconformist textile millionaires who started with zero.

28 February 2007 at 21:53  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

Thanks for his most interesting comment.

"Once you start looking at various industrial cities from 1780-1840 you can see the backgrounds of the men who built them, and they were predominantly Nonconformists.."

I don't doubt that because only creative people are able to invent and create new things and inventors are Nonconformists. I only have my doubts in regard to Max Weber's protestant hypothesis because I don't see sufficient evidence to disprove the null-hypothesis, i.e. that the observed relationship is not due to chance.

Weber's hypothesis is at variance with the fact that a similar strong or even stronger work ethic as in protestant countries is found in Japan, Korea and China. Next, one may ask what do these countries have in common with Northern European countries (such as England, Saxony, Netherland, Sweden) and the USA? The majority of the people in these countries are descendants of populations who have survived for more than 10,000 years in the cold climate of the Northern Hemisphere. To survive the harsh winters in these cold areas, two abilities are needed: an analytical and planning intellect and cooperation. And these are precisely the qualities encoutered in Japan, Korea, China, Singapore, England, Ireland, Scandinavia, Island, Germany, Switzerland, Northern Italy, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, i.e. all the countries which have invented or adapted quickly to the requirements of the industrial age. The climatic living conditions of their ancestors, i.e. their biological and cultural adaptation, is identical and not their religion. It seems to me that the analytical, planning and cooperative abilities which enabled these people to find solutions for surviving cold winters also enabled them to find solutions for improving the productivity of man’s work by developing or aquiring industrialization.

1 March 2007 at 23:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

and inventors are Nonconformists.

What a peculiar statement Colin !!


A "Nonconformist" is a Protestant not a communicant member of The Church of England under the terms of The Act of Uniformity 1662 and usually a Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quakers,


You ascribe extra powers of "creativity" and "invention" to those outside The Church of England......why you especially favour Calvinists as having superior skills of invention beats me.

I merely pointed out that excluded from traditional white collar and "professional" occupations they had to enter Trade and build businesses

2 March 2007 at 20:03  
Anonymous Colin said...

Sorry Vovager,

That was a misunderstanding on my part. I understood nonconformist in the general sense as someone not conforming to the general rules of society. I was unaware that you used it in the the religious sense.

However, that does not invalide my criticism of Max Weber's postulated causal relationhsip between Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. "In his opinion, under the Roman Catholic Church, an individual could be assured of salvation by belief in the church's sacraments and the authority of its hierarchy. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances... In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Worldly success became one measure of salvation... The essay can also be interpreted as one of Weber's criticisms of Karl Marx and his theories. While Marx held, generally speaking, that all human institutions - including religion - were based on economic foundations, The Protestant Ethic turns this theory on its head by implying that a religious movement fostered capitalism, not the other way around."

"Weber stated in the last of the endnotes that he abandoned research into Protestantism because his colleague Ernst Troeltsch, a professional theologian, had initiated work on the book The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches and Sects. Another reason for Weber's decision was that Troeltsch's essay had provided the perspective for a broad comparison of religion and society, which he continued in his later works (the study of Judaism and the religions of China and India)."

You might recall that I also pointed to China and its neighbouring countries as disproving the protestant theory of industrialization and I dared to add an political incorrect evolutionary explanation. It has been developed and backed up with data by Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus at the University of Ulster:

"East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54)...

East Asians invariably obtain high IQs, not only in their own native homelands but in Singapore, Malaysia, Hawaii and North America. To establish the validity of the racial IQs he shows that they have high correlations with performance in the international studies of achievement in mathematics and science. Racial IQs also have high correlations with national economic development, providing a major contribution to the problem of why the peoples of some nations are rich and others poor. He argues further that the IQ differences between the races explain the differences in achievement in making the Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to settled agriculture, the building of early civilizations, and the development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years.
...
He argues that the consistency of racial IQs in many different locations can only be explained by powerful genetic factors.
...and discusses how race differences in intelligence have evolved. He begins by putting the problem in context by summarizing Jerison’s (1973) classic study showing that during the course of evolution species have evolved greater intelligence in order to survive in more cognitively demanding environments.
...
The same principle, Lynn argues, explains the evolution of race differences in intelligence in humans. He elaborates the argument he has advanced over the last fifteen years that the race differences in intelligence have evolved as adaptations to colder environments as early humans migrated out of Africa. In North Africa and South Asia, and even more in Europe and Northeast Asia, these early humans encountered the problems of having to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and they had to hunt big game to survive. They also had to solve the problems of keeping warm. These required greater intelligence than was needed in tropical and semi-tropical equatorial Africa where plant foods are plentiful throughout the year. He shows that race differences in brain size and intelligence are both closely associated with low winter temperatures in the regions they inhabit. For instance, he gives a figure of 1282 cc for the average brain size of sub-Saharan Africans, as compared with 1367 cc for Europeans and 1416 cc for Orientals. His analysis relating race differences in intelligence to exposure to low winter temperatures has recently been independently corroborated by Templer and Arikawa (2005)."


Finally, in his book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, he examines IQ scores and economic indicators in 185 nations. Professor Rushton comments: "Few nations have IQs equal or near the British average of 100 (less than 20%). The highest average IQs are found among the Oriental nations of North East Asia (IQ = 104), followed by the European nations (IQ = 98), and the mainly White populations of North America and Australasia (IQ = 98)...Because many nations have IQs of 90 or less (almost 50%), this poses a serious problem if the book's conclusion that IQ = 90 forms the threshold for a technological economy is correct.
...
Mean national IQ correlates 0.71 with per capita Gross National Product (GNP) for 1998, and 0.76 with per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 1998, and that national IQs predict both long term (1820-1922) and short term (1950-90; 1976-1998) economic growth rates measured variously by per capita GNP and GDP (mean rs ~ 0.60)."


In conclusion, a large amount of data and statistical analyses support the evolutionary hypothesis whereas Max Weber's protestantism hypothesis is mere speculation.

3 March 2007 at 00:23  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Colin, if you wish to quote Weber do read Weber....not Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved

which clearly indicates you are reading derivative books on sociology no doubt.

It is pointless using secondary sources - read Tawney and Weber before attacking Weber

3 March 2007 at 06:21  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

LOL, I like your style of discussion because it is so predictable. When you don't have sufficient proof for your claims, you always provide a reading list as if you are the teacher and the other is an ignorant pupil.

That's method 1.10 Proof by eminent authority among the Invalid techniques of proof.

If you know your Weber and Tawney, as you claim you do, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to briefly summarize the main proof for Weber's hypothesis instead of distributing reading lists to everyone on this blog who doesn't share your view.

3 March 2007 at 17:57  
Anonymous bob said...

Voyager, if it's any consolation I went through a similar experience with Colin in an earlier discussion. He feels it is a slight against his intelligence to be asked to read something for himself, and when asked to do so he accuses the other of arrogance. I have every sympathy for you!

4 March 2007 at 09:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

as if you are the teacher and the other is an ignorant pupil.

NO Colin, I am not the teacher much as you wish me to be with comments such as it shouldn't be too difficult for you to briefly summarize the main proof

You obviously went to the wrong school - we don't do handouts on this Blog - and if you don't know your subject it is up to you to learn not anyone else.

5 March 2007 at 08:02  
Anonymous Colin said...

Voyager,

"You obviously went to the wrong school - we don't do handouts on this Blog"

In other words, you don't know the main points of the books you recommended to read.

Either you can prove your point or you cannot. Your strategy of claiming that dissidents from your point of view are ignornant doesn't prove anything. If they didn't teach you the rules of proof and debate at school, here is a book for you:

Hy Ruchlis: Clear Thinking - A Practical Introduction. Foreword by Isaac Asimov.

Relevant for you is chapter "Mistaking evidence for proof" on page 116:

"In everyday reasoning the difference between proof and evidence is usually blurred. People tend to accept a few bits of evidence as proof for their pet beliefs, often ignoring evidence that might disprove their view."

8 March 2007 at 22:00  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older